I really enjoy this game, and i appreciate how much community is important for games desing and stuffs.
The fact that a class is tested by community before release is fine, but after some new classes and some time, i think this interaction between designers and community should reach another level.
First, even if 3.5 base rules were fine, sometimes we should have the courage to go a bit far.
Old rules should be an aid, but not a weight. I'll make some example.
Ride skill when damaged. Identify spells in combat. Set traps.
Classes' concept. Rogue, fighter, monks. This classes are seen by a significant number of player as underpowered, but i mostly see less option of all other classes (rangers are fine as core classes, but poor on variants).
So the point is, since we have a lot of feedbacks on base rules, on classes and so on, why don't make a book with some updating?
I know that a lot of people, remembering the tons of manuals of 3.0 and 3.5, would not be happy, but i'm not speaking about a PF 2.0.
I think that what is motionless one day will became a thing of the past, and PF got the numbers to really live in the present all days.
This can be done not only with new adventure, new races, etc, but also rethinking old features with new playstyle.
I mean, how can rogue still be the same when ninja, inquisitors, and cool bard's archetype roams the game? This can be true also for other classes, of course. I can see only a little spot of the problem, if i can use this word. Is not even a problem, but an opportunity. So, i will give a global feedback on classes to start this, and i hope one day PF staff will take all feedbacks and would give us a PDF or a book to go ahead and evolve another time.
1) Classes.
All classes should have at least 4 skill points / level.
Alchemist: cognatogen is op. Bombs should have a shape (example, cone) and an energy. Now you can only do a frost bomb, but not a cone frost bomb.
Barbarian: just no rage cyicling :) Rest it's fine.
Bard: a very nice class. The only bad thing is that he could surclass specialized class in their field. Example: rogue on stealth, wizard on all knowledge.
Cavalier: I think that challenge, as smite evil, could be op. I relate it on CHA. Challenge do a bonus damage of 1/2 x level + cha bonus.
Cleric: a nice class. The only thing could be that is poor of "features", compared to oracle. The problem is not power, but flavour.
Druid: maybe a bit op, if DM let you abuse some combo with particular spells and wild shape, but can be handled.
Fighter: Now fighter is nice, in my opinion. We should think something for dex based melee combat, but this can be true for all melee. The big problem of a fighter: zero features to interact with magic. Ok, fighters don't cast spells, but as they have feats against spellcasters, why not something for spell affinity or resistence?
Some example: a fighter could use a cold iron weapon to destroy force effects. Some archetype of a fighter who protect and helps casters, and so on. If a setting is high magic, even a mundane fighter should now something about.
Inquisitor: OP? I mean, his bane... i think is too strong, since he got also other buffs, a lot of skill, a domain, spells, etc. This class really humiliate the old rogue. Ok, rogue got 8 skills / level, but bards and inquisitors got so much bonuses (half/level on skills) that surclass him. I'd modify his bane this way: +1d6 (then 2d6 for grater bane) of holy or profane bonus damage. He already got steroids for hit chance.
All casters: some spells are too strong, and spells DC should not be too high. At some level a spell can deny a monster, or worst, a character. I'm not saying that dominate monster should be no more, but if i play a NPC wizards i'm pretty sure that if i dominate the fighter game is over. Same for PC vs enemy. Low hit throws are really too low sometimes, and sometimes high ST are not enough.
After witch i made a new rule. Since witch got hexes, that let her spam useful spells, i thinked to change spells DC in this way: caster leve/2 + bonus of relevant stat. With some attention on low level spells that could be too strong, in this way a caster can enjoy using spells of all different type, and even paladin and ranger could use all available spells (now they just have to ignore all of their spells that allow a ST).
Witch: more hexes, and more useful for PC. Now they got few hexes and too much are only for NPC, and some are quite useless.
Rogue: Lowest hit chance except full arcane casters, worst ST of the game. Sneak attack is fine, but... is it an outdated features? I think so. His bonus damage is so strong that rogue rely almost 100% on that. Less damage, more tricks.
Magus: i think it's fine.
Samurai and ninja: too strong compared to base classes.
Paladin: Truly op. Swift self heal condition remover, smite evile op. Bypass all DR (i make it only function as "good"). Too much damage (i use level/2 + cha bonus). Bonus on hit and AC is strong, but is not the problem i think. His ST are the best in the game.
Ranger: a nice class. Archetype are totally messed up. Too much substitute class features like favored enemy that are necessary to mid and high leve abilities without changing it.
Sorry for my english, i'm not native speaker. I'll appreciate any feedback, expecially on classes, i'd like to read all your idea about actual game situation and on class changes, if needed.
Good game to all.
Ok seems this interest only me :D
Ok seems this interest only me :D
I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but beyond not understanding the broader point you are trying to make, I take issue with the vast majority of your suggestions. For example:
All casters: some spells are too strong, and spells DC should not be too high. At some level a spell can deny a monster, or worst, a character. I'm not saying that dominate monster should be no more, but if i play a NPC wizards i'm pretty sure that if i dominate the fighter game is over. Same for PC vs enemy. Low hit throws are really too low sometimes, and sometimes high ST are not enough.
I don't agree with you. If you dominate the party fighter (a full round action) the party wizard/cleric/bard/sorcerer/paladin/rogue/oracle/inquisitor/magus hits him with a protection from evil (from a scroll or wand if needed) or a dispel magic.
Similarly, I take issue with:
Fighter: Now fighter is nice, in my opinion. We should think something for dex based melee combat, but this can be true for all melee. The big problem of a fighter: zero features to interact with magic. Ok, fighters don't cast spells, but as they have feats against spellcasters, why not something for spell affinity or resistence?
Because spell resistance on a party member has been shown time and again to be far more of a problem than a help in the vast majority of circumstances.
I could go on. In general though it seems like you are retreading the same ground that has come up on a thousand threads before. "Spellcasters are too strong" and "X is OP" are things that there are no general agreement about.
Ok seems this interest only me :D
The block of text at the beginning is hard to read and I'm not sure if I understand what your asking/doing. Care to make a short version?
It's complex and i find hard to explain. For example, when i wrote some spell affinity or resistance i didn't mean "spell resistance", but something that could help against (like anti caster feats and so on).
I'll try to avoid speaking about specific rules and go straight to the point.
PF comes from 3.5, that comes from 3.0, and so on. This means that even if it was a great evolution PF carry some weight of the past.
Best example is rouge. It had little change from old rogues, got a strong damage ability (sneak attack), but it's considered so strong that barely got something else. It's a "mundane" class, and it's fine because game needs mundane class, but it's so mundane that barely got something special. Actually it is so obsolete that is not the true specialist of any role, not even being eclettic.
So books after books, that gave us new classes (inquisitors), archetype (of bard and ranger) now it's clear that rogue would be never the best choice. A urban trap ranger can fit the same role even better (with no spells). Archeologist bard is the same, but with spells.
Why this example? It's clear that the evolution of PF in the years changed the game itself, something still fits the game (paladin not only fits, but are even too strong maybe), something not. I used the rogue because it's easy to explain.
What i asked for? Upgrade. Not a 1.5 or 2.0 ediction, but a rework of some classes or rogue to collect community's feedback and give them a form in rules. I've seen a lot of rules or class rework suggestions in the forum and some are really good. I hope i explained better this time :)
A rework would be a 2.0 or 1.5... So your trying to point out all the problems in a well made post or something in hopes someone reads it and makes the changes one day?
Cognatogen causes ability damage btw. Its actually broken in the wrong direction I've always thought. There are a lot of wierd things you said that I'd disagree with.
A rework of just some rules and features will not be a new edition. Is like a set of optional rules.
You are quite right by the way, what i'd like is to see community talk about fix of rules that don't work (or they think that don't work), discuss about this and that staff use this discussion to give us an upgrade.
I'm not talking about making new rules, new classes and so on, just fixing obsolete features of game. Considering the actual dimension of PF will be a minor rework, like giving a bigger errata but not at all a new edition.
About cognatogen: i think mutagen is like wild shape, a buff for an hibrid class, and it's good. Cognatogen instead adds more power in a core ability of the class, but with the same numbers mutagen gives to an alternate aspect of the class. In few words, alchemist are not good in combat, mutagen makes them better. But they are already good with bombs and extracts, they have full caster like DC with bombs, and cognatogen makes them insane better. You can have a bomb DC 4 points better than your party wizard best spell.